Hi, I think that the Church is shooting itself in the foot. When John Kennedy was running for president, the problem that he had to overcome was the "orders from Rome" fuss. And he had to say that he would be independent of the Church. And he got elected on that.

Now here the Church is again giving marching orders. And doing so in even stronger terms.

And in the same direction, check on Dunesberry's past. Mr T. really would like to just tell people how to vote. But that has backfired *so* badly that he tries to look like he is reporting news (similar though opposite to CNN) and hope that someone will listen. Ditto my liberal priest -- a great desire to say 'Vote this way', restrained only by the backlash. And the Church? No such restraint. So should you expect the backlash?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004

Answers

Explain how the church s giving marching orders. No one is in the dark about the Catholic Church's opposition on moral, not political grounds --opposition to the sin of abortion. She is offering our Catholic politicians good counsel: Do not commit a mortal sin and subsequently present yourselves shamelessly for Holy Communion.

What is this mortal sin? Openly supporting abortion on demand. If you do, you've committed a grave sin. No one in a state of unrepentent sin is eligible to receive Holy Communion. Vote whatever you please, but do not abuse the sacrament of the Eucharist. PUBLICLY.

Because then, you also cause scandal. You publicly incite the disrespect of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist by other sinners who follow your depraved and indifferent example.

This controversy isn't about separation of Church and State. It's mainly about the Catholic's obligation to repent of a grave offense against God (and innocent unborn babies) or abstain from receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 24, 2004.

Actually, Kerry is thumbing his nose at that moral teachings of the Church, saying that politics is more important than Church moral teachings. It is a completely different thing than what happened with JFK.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004.

>Explain how the church s giving marching orders. How about do this or else? Also, how about the threads in this forum: vote this or else?

But your other point (vote and act Catholic or forget about calling yourself such) does bear thinking about. It still has a bit of the flavor of the 'or else' above, just better justified.

>Actually, Kerry is thumbing his nose at that moral teachings of the >Church, saying that politics is more important than Church moral >teachings. It is a completely different thing than what happened >with JFK. Bill, (I really have been impressed by what I have read of your comments elsewhere.) How is he different from Kennedy?

All,

The over all point was/is that trying to force an election can backfire, that this is historically true, and so, why are you trying to do this?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004.

Sean, How is the Church trying to force any election?

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Bill, "How is the church trying to force an election?"

Two views: First on this forum: Your article and stance have said that to vote Kerry/Democrat is a sin.

Second, in the real world, where the Church's most vocal points seem to be saying the same thing.

And last, for many the detailed reality is not the noticed thing, but the perception of what is happening is everything.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

>Two views: First on this forum: Your article and stance have said that to vote Kerry/Democrat is a sin.

First off, I am not 'the Church'. OK, so now that we have that straight. What I have said is, to my understanding of Church doctrine, to knowingly vote for someone who is pro-abortion, because they are pro-abortion is a mortal sin.

>Second, in the real world, where the Church's most vocal points seem to be saying the same thing.

Here is what we are trying to do:
1) Continue to teach clearly and help other Catholics to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries.

2) Persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.

3)Act in support of these principles and policies in public life. It is the particular vocation of the laity to transform the world. We have to encourage this vocation and do more to bring all believers to this mission. As bishops, we do not endorse or oppose candidates. Rather, we seek to form the consciences of our people so that they can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching.

4) Not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

If this sounds familiar, you can find it here: UCCB Catholics in Political Life

>And last, for many the detailed reality is not the noticed thing, but the perception of what is happening is everything.

Hopefully, I have cleared up your perception and at the same time you will not vote pro-murder.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

point #3 above, as the other points, were quoted from the USCCB document. Reading it one might deduce I am a Bishop, I am not. Should of excized that reference.

Sean, did the post clear things up for you?

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Sean, did the post clear things up for you?

If it didn't, Bill, then I second that clarification and maybe we'll see what this "majority perception" is.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

Oh sorry! I'm a little "wired" right now. *the* majority perception, not "this" :)

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

Sean,

There is more information here as well:
Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

I think I have had my say. I plan to vote pro-consitution, not pro-treason. But that is my own thing. And we have had this discussion before, and got to a point of understanding each other's viewpoints.

On Kennedy... if he had been as hard pressed by the Church, would he have taken his marching orders? Or would he have voted/acted as he said he would? We will never know. But if the 'marching orders' are given so strongly, no Catholic will have a chance at both being Pres and following such. If this does not concern you, then no loss.

I also agree with you that as a group you will need to press your agenda forcefully. But you might think that being smart could work better than being forceful. A member of our parish was checking out the Catholic Church. Got 3 weeks of political push sermons, and left. To our great gain, he is a wonderful guy.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

"1) Continue to teach clearly and help other Catholics to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries. "

gotta do that, I do see.

"2) Persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves."

Gotta do that, I do see.

Do not have to look like you are forcing it down the throat of the public. I just do not see this.

Do not have to look like you are harrassing a public figure. I just do not see this.

So I ask why this method, and get replies that say 'We must". If you do not care what you lose, you do not have a loss, right?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Sean,

I note your concern. However, being goal-oriented(which sounds like what you're suggesting) for a catholic means to follow the moral teachings of the Church. I don't think most who say things, which you refer to, do it as a strategy for winning any way possible. That is cheating morality. We have a responsibility to obey the teachings of the Church. I think people it makes people angry to see someone flaunt their disobedience as Kerry does. Or make a sham of our religion. Or probably what gets me most angry is that he would defile my God, in the Blessed Sacrament. I still hang on to the thinnest thread of hope, worn so after seeing McCarrick's frustration (whom I thought had the best chance of converting him) and the recent Marriage Amendment debacle.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

Flaunt his disobeyance?

To walk in and scream I am a Catholic that does X and believes Y and you still must give me communion would be flauting. To continue to practice in a way that is in harmony with many sinners who are catholics and just do not want to confront the Church establishment is not flaunting -- it is just going along. Maybe poorly, but not flanuting it -- at least until the establishment made an Issue of it.

And this is slightly off topic anyway. As is all such answers as to why you feel so deaply.

On topic is why you want to emulate Gary T.'s (doonsbury) Regan's Brain cartoon that lost him so much. But since your lack of slickness may be good for the other side, I am just raising this for curiosity sake. And should drop it before you actually catch on and do something about it all.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 25, 2004.

Hello Sean,

The over all point was/is that trying to force an election can backfire, that this is historically true, and so, why are you trying to do this?

You state an unknown probability, then assume that we're attempting this unknown probability, then ask why we're knowingly attempting this assumed unknown probability that you have somehow stated. The answer you got was "obedience".

Curiosly, it doesn't follow that you should raise a subject out of curiosity(to know - and you've known since Bill and Eugene answered you) then state just about everywhere that you have determined the outcome of our actions. So what's there to know? Feedback? You got your feedback.

But since your lack of slickness may be good for the other side, I am just raising this for curiosity sake. And should drop it before you actually catch on and do something about it all

Yes, you should because if you had been going for satire all along, then it was very amateurish. If you were going for a sarcastic one-liner to end ill-reasoned logic(the great comic strip reasoning), then you're a defeatist. If you had cohesive purpose and based on your failed rhetoric, then you're just a lousy tempter in the face of obedience.

So, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt yet again and say: you are confused my friend. I'm done here.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

Vincent, I agree that trying to do something when I do not care for the outcome is confused. Also in the sense that an essay writer should have a point, and should be on the side of that point, thus confused.

"You state an unknown probability, then assume that we're attempting this unknown probability, then ask why we're knowingly attempting this assumed unknown probability that you have somehow stated. The answer you got was "obedience". "

Well I do have many data points that trying this will backfire. And public perception as in the news reports that the Catholic Church is seen as trying to do this. And if it is obedience, then I still think that the method is flawed.

"Curiosly, it doesn't follow that you should raise a subject out of curiosity(to know - and you've known since Bill and Eugene answered you) then state just about everywhere that you have determined the outcome of our actions. So what's there to know? Feedback? You got your feedback. "

Actually, no. Bill and Eugene answered why the goal was persued, not why the pursuit took that method.

"Yes, you should because if you had been going for satire all along, then it was very amateurish. If you were going for a sarcastic one- liner to end ill-reasoned logic(the great comic strip reasoning), then you're a defeatist. If you had cohesive purpose and based on your failed rhetoric, then you're just a lousy tempter in the face of obedience. "

Ok, we can let the conversation die.

So, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt yet again and say: you are confused my friend. I'm done here.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 25, 2004.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.